Robbery convictions affirmed, but sentences reduced to nine years and six months.

The appellants were convicted by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Dhar, under Sections 392 read with 397 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to ten years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹5,000 each.

The prosecution case was that, on 10 February 2017, the complainant’s car was stopped by cement bags; several persons pelted stones at the vehicle, injured its occupants, and robbed them of ornaments, cards, documents, cash and mobile phones.

On appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellants challenged the conviction on evidentiary grounds and alternatively sought reduction of sentence, submitting that they had no criminal antecedents and had spent more than nine years in custody.

Whether the trial court’s findings convicting the appellants under Sections 392 read with 397 IPC were supported by the evidence and should be affirmed.

Whether, in the circumstances, the appellants’ ten-year custodial sentences should be reduced.

Section 374(2) CrPC provides for an appeal against conviction by a Sessions Court.

Sections 392 and 397 IPC were the provisions under which the appellants were convicted and sentenced.

The Court stated no separate precedent or detailed sentencing test; it considered the evidence supporting the convictions and the appellants’ circumstances, including their lack of criminal antecedents, youth at the time of the incident, and period already spent in custody.

The Court found that the complainant’s testimony was corroborated by other witnesses and the FIR, and concluded that the prosecution had proved the charges; it therefore declined to interfere with the convictions.

On sentence, it considered that the appellants had no recorded criminal antecedents, were young at the time of the incident, and had undergone more than nine years’ incarceration. It held that reducing the custodial term to nine years and six months would serve the ends of justice.

The Court directed that the appellants be released on completion of that term if not required in another case; any default sentence for non-payment of the trial court’s fine remained applicable.